Abiogenesis & Cell Theory overlap?

[bilby]

Where is it commonly held that viruses are not living organisms?

It is a point of contention in biology but most widely held that a virus is not alive but "are more complex biochemical mechanisms than living organisms." It really boils down to how "life" is defined. Current most accepted definition leaves viruses out of the alive category since 1935.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html

When researchers first discovered agents that behaved like bacteria but were much smaller and caused diseases such as rabies and foot-and-mouth disease, it became the general view that viruses were biologically "alive." However this perception changed in 1935 when the tobacco mosaic virus was crystallized and it was shown that the particles lacked the mechanisms necessary for metabolic function. Once it was established that viruses consist merely of DNA or RNA surrounded by a protein shell, it became the scientific view that they are more complex biochemical mechanisms than living organisms.

That quoted passage is in dire need of some punctuation.

I presume that they are saying that viruses

are more [correctly described as] 'complex biochemical mechanisms' than [they are] 'living organisms'.

Because as it is written, it says that, as biochemical mechanisms, viruses are more complex even than living organisms - which is rather silly.

As a biochemist who failed 'O' level English on his first attempt, I sympathise with their incompetence at communicating their ideas, but I cannot condone it.

 

[skepticalbip]

That quoted passage is in dire need of some punctuation.

I presume that they are saying that viruses

are more [correctly described as] 'complex biochemical mechanisms' than [they are] 'living organisms'.

Because as it is written, it says that, as biochemical mechanisms, viruses are more complex even than living organisms - which is rather silly.

As a biochemist who failed 'O' level English on his first attempt, I sympathise with their incompetence at communicating their ideas, but I cannot condone it.

Hey, I'm no grammarian but the wording even looked awkward to me. I gave the author, old George, leeway considering that he is nearing completion of a doctoral program in Thermal Microbiology rather than a degree in English composition. But the gist (without parsing) seemed pretty obvious. However, untermensche may disagree.

 

[untermensche]

Where is it commonly held that viruses are not living organisms?

It is a point of contention in biology but most widely held that a virus is not alive but "are more complex biochemical mechanisms than living organisms." It really boils down to how "life" is defined. Current most accepted definition leaves viruses out of the alive category since 1935.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html

When researchers first discovered agents that behaved like bacteria but were much smaller and caused diseases such as rabies and foot-and-mouth disease, it became the general view that viruses were biologically "alive." However this perception changed in 1935 when the tobacco mosaic virus was crystallized and it was shown that the particles lacked the mechanisms necessary for metabolic function. Once it was established that viruses consist merely of DNA or RNA surrounded by a protein shell, it became the scientific view that they are more complex biochemical mechanisms than living organisms.

This is an arbitrary definition. It is circular as well.

It just says that cellular life is life.

There are many objections. Like how does something that isn't living evolve, since evolution is a specific process involving only life.

 

[bilby]

It is a point of contention in biology but most widely held that a virus is not alive but "are more complex biochemical mechanisms than living organisms." It really boils down to how "life" is defined. Current most accepted definition leaves viruses out of the alive category since 1935.

http://serc.carleton.edu/microbelife/yellowstone/viruslive.html

When researchers first discovered agents that behaved like bacteria but were much smaller and caused diseases such as rabies and foot-and-mouth disease, it became the general view that viruses were biologically "alive." However this perception changed in 1935 when the tobacco mosaic virus was crystallized and it was shown that the particles lacked the mechanisms necessary for metabolic function. Once it was established that viruses consist merely of DNA or RNA surrounded by a protein shell, it became the scientific view that they are more complex biochemical mechanisms than living organisms.

This is an arbitrary definition. It is circular as well.

It just says that cellular life is life.

There are many objections. Like how does something that isn't living evolve, since evolution is a specific process involving only life.

[YOUTUBE]http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4kiAwdot0U4[/YOUTUBE]

So Holden Utes are alive?

 

[Malintent]

This is an arbitrary definition. It is circular as well.

It just says that cellular life is life.

There are many objections. Like how does something that isn't living evolve, since evolution is a specific process involving only life.

"life" is not part of the theory of evolution. "biological organism" is. Viruses, whether "alive" or not, are indeed biological organisms.

 

[bilby]

This is an arbitrary definition. It is circular as well.

It just says that cellular life is life.

There are many objections. Like how does something that isn't living evolve, since evolution is a specific process involving only life.

"life" is not part of the theory of evolution. "biological organism" is. Viruses, whether "alive" or not, are indeed biological organisms.

Neither 'biological' nor 'organism' are necessary parts of evolution - much less 'life'.

All evolution needs is replication and selection.

Hence how things like roads, cars, and buildings evolve.

 

[untermensche]

"life" is not part of the theory of evolution. "biological organism" is. Viruses, whether "alive" or not, are indeed biological organisms.

Neither 'biological' nor 'organism' are necessary parts of evolution - much less 'life'.

All evolution needs is replication and selection.

Hence how things like roads, cars, and buildings evolve.

No, cars and roads don't evolve. That is just a poetic use of the word.

They may change but not all change is evolution.

Evolution is how living organisms change.

 

[Kharakov]

Neither 'biological' nor 'organism' are necessary parts of evolution - much less 'life'.

All evolution needs is replication and selection.

Hence how things like roads, cars, and buildings evolve.

No, cars and roads don't evolve. That is just a poetic use of the word.

They may change but not all change is evolution.

Evolution is how living organisms change.

Ohh, so you're talking about living things like languages, thoughts, or forms, right?

 

[bilby]

Neither 'biological' nor 'organism' are necessary parts of evolution - much less 'life'.

All evolution needs is replication and selection.

Hence how things like roads, cars, and buildings evolve.

No, cars and roads don't evolve. That is just a poetic use of the word.

They may change but not all change is evolution.

Evolution is how living organisms change.

No. Evolution is the general case - imperfect replication with selection.

Biological evolution is the specific case of evolution occurring in living things; but that is useless as a defining characteristic of living things, because it includes the conclusion.

To say that life is that which undergoes biological evolution is to make a circular argument.

To say that life is that which undergoes evolution is to include as 'life' such things as motor vehicle designs, languages, and popular music.

 

[untermensche]

No, cars and roads don't evolve. That is just a poetic use of the word.

They may change but not all change is evolution.

Evolution is how living organisms change.

Ohh, so you're talking about living things like languages, thoughts, or forms, right?

None of those evolve either.

Growth is not evolution. Change in human design is not evolution.

Evolution is how life changes in response to changing environmental circumstances. And it is not directional.

 

[untermensche]

No, cars and roads don't evolve. That is just a poetic use of the word.

They may change but not all change is evolution.

Evolution is how living organisms change.

No. Evolution is the general case - imperfect replication with selection.

Biological evolution is the specific case of evolution occurring in living things; but that is useless as a defining characteristic of living things, because it includes the conclusion.

To say that life is that which undergoes biological evolution is to make a circular argument.

To say that life is that which undergoes evolution is to include as 'life' such things as motor vehicle designs, languages, and popular music.

This is the science forum, not the poetry forum.

Evolution has a specific meaning in biology.

It is used loosely in other disciplines but it means something else entirely.

I use the word technically, not loosely. Evolution is how life changes in response to changing local environments.

It is not how the designs of bridges change over time.

 

[skepticalbip]

Ohh, so you're talking about living things like languages, thoughts, or forms, right?

None of those evolve either.

Growth is not evolution. Change in human design is not evolution.

Evolution is how life changes in response to changing environmental circumstances. And it is not directional.

You are using the special case of the way the word, “evolve”, is used in the life sciences. The meaning of the word is much more general than as used in biology. Darwin didn’t invent the word. He used a word that was in common usage describing an already existing concept of things changing and applied it to his theory.

Evolve:
verb (used with object), evolved, evolving.
1.
to develop gradually:
to evolve a scheme.
2.
to give off or emit, as odors or vapors.
verb (used without object), evolved, evolving.
3.
to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution :
The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.
4.
Biology. to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition:
The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probably arboreal.

 

[untermensche]

None of those evolve either.

Growth is not evolution. Change in human design is not evolution.

Evolution is how life changes in response to changing environmental circumstances. And it is not directional.

You are using the special case of the way the word, “evolve”, is used in the life sciences. The meaning of the word is much more general than as used in biology. Darwin didn’t invent the word. He used a word that was in common usage describing an already existing concept of things changing and applied it to his theory.

Evolve:
verb (used with object), evolved, evolving.
1.
to develop gradually:
to evolve a scheme.
2.
to give off or emit, as odors or vapors.
verb (used without object), evolved, evolving.
3.
to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution :
The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.
4.
Biology. to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition:
The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probably arboreal.

The only place the word is defined with any precision is in biology.

Otherwise all it means is change of any kind.

I can say the leaf evolved through space as it fell to the earth.

I can say the match evolved into a burning ember after it was lit.

I can throw the word "evolve" at any change of any kind.

So why not say "change" when the only meaning conveyed is to change? Saying "evolve" adds no meaning at all.

 

[Underseer]

None of those evolve either.

Growth is not evolution. Change in human design is not evolution.

Evolution is how life changes in response to changing environmental circumstances. And it is not directional.

You are using the special case of the way the word, “evolve”, is used in the life sciences. The meaning of the word is much more general than as used in biology. Darwin didn’t invent the word. He used a word that was in common usage describing an already existing concept of things changing and applied it to his theory.

Evolve:
verb (used with object), evolved, evolving.
1.
to develop gradually:
to evolve a scheme.
2.
to give off or emit, as odors or vapors.
verb (used without object), evolved, evolving.
3.
to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution :
The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.
4.
Biology. to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition:
The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probably arboreal.

So in a discussion about the scientific theory of evolution, we should use the dictionary definition of evolution instead of the scientific definition?

 

[skepticalbip]

You are using the special case of the way the word, “evolve”, is used in the life sciences. The meaning of the word is much more general than as used in biology. Darwin didn’t invent the word. He used a word that was in common usage describing an already existing concept of things changing and applied it to his theory.

Evolve:
verb (used with object), evolved, evolving.
1.
to develop gradually:
to evolve a scheme.
2.
to give off or emit, as odors or vapors.
verb (used without object), evolved, evolving.
3.
to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution :
The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.
4.
Biology. to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition:
The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probably arboreal.

So in a discussion about the scientific theory of evolution, we should use the dictionary definition of evolution instead of the scientific definition?

The discussion was about the evolution of per-cellular molecules, the fact that they do change and/or reproduce. It was maintained that if they (viruses) reproduced and evolved then they are alive because, according to the assertion, only living organisms evolve. Non-living molecular forms also evolve.

 

[skepticalbip]

You are using the special case of the way the word, “evolve”, is used in the life sciences. The meaning of the word is much more general than as used in biology. Darwin didn’t invent the word. He used a word that was in common usage describing an already existing concept of things changing and applied it to his theory.

Evolve:
verb (used with object), evolved, evolving.
1.
to develop gradually:
to evolve a scheme.
2.
to give off or emit, as odors or vapors.
verb (used without object), evolved, evolving.
3.
to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution :
The whole idea evolved from a casual remark.
4.
Biology. to develop by a process of evolution to a different adaptive state or condition:
The human species evolved from an ancestor that was probably arboreal.

The only place the word is defined with any precision is in biology.

Otherwise all it means is change of any kind.

I can say the leaf evolved through space as it fell to the earth.

I can say the match evolved into a burning ember after it was lit.

I can throw the word "evolve" at any change of any kind.

So why not say "change" when the only meaning conveyed is to change? Saying "evolve" adds no meaning at all.

The word "evolve" is used precisely because it has a specific meaning within the context of a discussion. The fact that you don't understand or disapprove of its meaning is your problem, not a problem for the English language. Invent your own word if you don't like how people correctly use the existing language, or be more specific with your use such as say, "evolution of species".

 

[untermensche]

The word "evolve" is used precisely because it has a specific meaning within the context of a discussion. The fact that you don't understand or disapprove of its meaning is your problem, not a problem for the English language. Invent your own word if you don't like how people correctly use the existing language, or be more specific with your use such as say, "evolution of species".

Where is this precision?

Give me an instance where saying "evolve", except in biology, adds precision or meaning beyond saying "change".

 

[skepticalbip]

The word "evolve" is used precisely because it has a specific meaning within the context of a discussion. The fact that you don't understand or disapprove of its meaning is your problem, not a problem for the English language. Invent your own word if you don't like how people correctly use the existing language, or be more specific with your use such as say, "evolution of species".

Where is this precision?

Give me an instance where saying "evolve", except in biology, adds precision or meaning beyond saying "change".

That was already given in the dictionary definition: "to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution : The whole idea evolved from a casual remark." The casual remark didn't just change. There was evolution from the casual remark that resulted into a fully formed idea. The current design of the supersonic jet fighters evolved through several stages from the first design of the Wright flier at Kitty Hawk.

 

[untermensche]

Where is this precision?

Give me an instance where saying "evolve", except in biology, adds precision or meaning beyond saying "change".

That was already given in the dictionary definition: "to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution : The whole idea evolved from a casual remark." The casual remark didn't just change. There was evolution from the casual remark that resulted into a fully formed idea. The current design of the supersonic jet fighters evolved through several stages from the first design of the Wright flier at Kitty Hawk.

What is added by saying an idea evolved vs an idea changed?

 

[skepticalbip]

That was already given in the dictionary definition: "to come forth gradually into being; develop; undergo evolution : The whole idea evolved from a casual remark." The casual remark didn't just change. There was evolution from the casual remark that resulted into a fully formed idea. The current design of the supersonic jet fighters evolved through several stages from the first design of the Wright flier at Kitty Hawk.

What is added by saying an idea evolved vs an idea changed?

I think you are just pretending to be ignorant just for argumentation purposes or maybe it is just embarrassment.

If you truly see no difference in saying "supersonic jet fighters are a change from the Wright flier" and, "The current design of the supersonic jet fighters evolved through several stages from the first design of the Wright flier at Kitty Hawk." then there is no hope for you.

ETA:
but, even if you truly see no difference, it doesn't matter because no one is going to stop using the English language correctly just because you don't like it.